tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post5599161744654596790..comments2023-11-05T20:19:44.812+13:00Comments on Ambassador Watch: A favorite lieGavinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03060097218905523899noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-64757635160338901232008-03-21T07:35:00.000+13:002008-03-21T07:35:00.000+13:00Oh, that's being polite. It's much more civil than...<I>Oh, that's being polite. It's much more civil than "retard," don't you think?</I><BR/><BR/>No, it's not any different than "retard." Just as contemptuous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-51678289974306332162008-03-16T20:34:00.000+13:002008-03-16T20:34:00.000+13:00Well, Gavin showed he can be such a sucker tooWell, Gavin showed he can be such a sucker tooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-51841739348321367172008-03-16T03:09:00.000+13:002008-03-16T03:09:00.000+13:00Q,Yes, it was not a clear cut issue, nor were Gali...Q,<BR/><BR/>Yes, it was not a clear cut issue, nor were Galileo and Copernicus totally correct; but that has nothing to do with my point, which is: that the primary opposition to the theory was due to the Bible and that Kreationists today follow the same reasoning; if a theory contradicts scripture, then the theory cannot be true, regardless of the evidence.<BR/><BR/>I've been reading "Galileo's Daughter" and it's pretty interesting, though I don't know if it could be considered a top source on the matter.<BR/><BR/>PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-60217469053381437822008-03-16T01:32:00.000+13:002008-03-16T01:32:00.000+13:00Whoops! - move this comment to the St P column!!!Whoops! - move this comment to the St P column!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-39256086669844206772008-03-16T01:30:00.000+13:002008-03-16T01:30:00.000+13:00Regarding St P: I see from the article that there ...Regarding St P: I see from the article that there are several citations from important authors who corroborate that the Celtic Church was Sabbatarian - later swamped by Roman tradition. <BR/><BR/>A previous comment scorned the pre-Nicene church - which was (fading) Sabbatarian. But surely tradition must not conflict with the authentic revelation from the Twelve and Psul? Otherwise believe anything - or like our other Paul, nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-64753192996277834252008-03-15T09:54:00.000+13:002008-03-15T09:54:00.000+13:00Paul said:- “I am well aware of Copernicus.I don't...Paul said:- <BR/><BR/>“I am well aware of Copernicus.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand your point. Are you implying that the opposition to Galileo and his subsequent trial by the Inquisition were not motivated and based by religious thought that gathered from the Bible? Are you implying that the Church itself was kosher with the idea?”<BR/><BR/>To a degree, yes I am, but only to a degree. The point I am making is that it wasn’t a simple, clear cut issue. It wasn’t that on the one hand Galileo had the truth; on the other hand the Church was suppressing it. <BR/><BR/>Popular science at the time followed the ideas of Aristotle, which is many ways was simular to the Catholic Church’s official view at that time. And it was also true that there were problems with Copernicus’s ideas – for example he assumed that the planets, including the earth, orbited the sun in perfect circles. This didn’t match observation, and cast doubt on his idea. It was Kepler who came up with the idea that the planets’ actual orbit was an ellipse, not a circle. <BR/><BR/>With the use of telescopes, even some Jesuit astronomers tended to agree with Galileo. But Galileo, by going along with the Copernicus theory, was going along with a theory which did have known faults in it. It just wasn’t a clear-cut issue.<BR/><BR/>The reason I quoted Cardinal Bellarmine, was to show that some of the Church authorities were saying in effect that if Galileo was right, then the Church would need to realise that the Church had misunderstood the scriptures, and they should not issue some sort of decree claiming that what Galileo had demonstrated was false. <BR/><BR/>The article ‘Galileo Affair’ on Wikipedia, I think gives the flavour of the politics and posturing that went on at the time.Questerukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659962107808147107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-24774428297863938522008-03-15T09:36:00.000+13:002008-03-15T09:36:00.000+13:00"The age of the universe is a point of dispute bet..."The age of the universe is a point of dispute between the Bible and the opinion of the majority of astronomers today...Why is it that so many scientists choose to ignore the recorded history of the Bible, and instead believe in a vastly inflated age of the universe?<BR/>"<BR/><BR/>This from Answers in Genesis, one of the leading Kreationist thinktanks around. This is the cream of the kreationist crop. Notice their ultimate authority. The Bible.<BR/><BR/>PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-76662852938781103902008-03-15T08:35:00.000+13:002008-03-15T08:35:00.000+13:00Tom Mahon said . . .Well, to date, no one has demo...Tom Mahon said . . .<BR/><BR/><I>Well, to date, no one has demonstrated that the sun is at the centre of our solar system. So heliocentrism is nothing more than a theory.<BR/><BR/>OTOH, the Holy Bible, which is the authentic voice of the Holy Spirit of Truth, is God's divine revelation to man on all matters relating to the world. It indicates that the earth is at the centre of the universe.</I><BR/><BR/><B>UNBELIEVABLE!!</B> <BR/><BR/>Ignorance really does prevail.Corkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15894537940881776504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-62814328224311386952008-03-15T08:27:00.000+13:002008-03-15T08:27:00.000+13:00"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same Go..."I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Galileo"<BR/><BR/>I believe that was in response to the controversy as to whether his view conflicted with scripture- he was simply defending the use of logic and observation, not trying to link them with a belief in God.<BR/><BR/>PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-47822816214891733962008-03-15T08:00:00.000+13:002008-03-15T08:00:00.000+13:00Tom preacheth: "OTOH, the Holy Bible, which is the...Tom preacheth: "OTOH, the Holy Bible, which is the authentic voice of the Holy Spirit of Truth, is God's divine revelation to man on all matters relating to the world. It indicates that the earth is at the centre of the universe."<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, you provided no evidence to back up this statement. Was that just an oversight on your part?<BR/><BR/>Bob E.Baashabobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13945527695465082450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-22860020481233325162008-03-15T07:59:00.001+13:002008-03-15T07:59:00.001+13:00Tom Mahon,The sun is at the center / anchor point ...Tom Mahon,<BR/><BR/>The sun is at the center / anchor point of the solar system. All objects subject to her gravity orbit her. This is not a theological matter is really isn't subject to debate. This is not a theory.<BR/><BR/>Theoretically, I suppose if the boundaries of the universe are known, it could be possible for the Earth to be a central object, but that remains to be seen and I don't know what the odds would be on that but they are probably 'astronomical', pun intended.<BR/><BR/>Dennis, Good luck getting that job!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-51259548233813499642008-03-15T07:59:00.000+13:002008-03-15T07:59:00.000+13:00Byker Bob said:I'd like to coin a new cliche here....Byker Bob said:<BR/>I'd like to coin a new cliche here.<BR/>We should give all of these false internet prophets a new title: e-lie-jah!<BR/><BR/>Great idea Bob! Of course the founder of the whole mess would be Http://www. Armstrong.<BR/><BR/>rodroidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-10217974991163317522008-03-15T07:55:00.000+13:002008-03-15T07:55:00.000+13:00Paul asked: "How does a belief in a supernatural b...Paul asked: "How does a belief in a supernatural being (whose existence can't be proved) further scientific inquiry?"<BR/><BR/>I think Galileo answered that question quite succinctly:<BR/>"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Galileo<BR/><BR/>Bob E.Baashabobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13945527695465082450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-82157103692492050212008-03-15T07:44:00.000+13:002008-03-15T07:44:00.000+13:00Hey guys: A favor!Any alms, meat and grain, blood...Hey guys: A favor!<BR/><BR/>Any alms, meat and grain, blood or just plain human sacrfices you might be willing to offer up for me to your appropriate Deity would be appreciated. <BR/><BR/>I have a chance to move into a Patient Relations job and twood be nice. I think. Not sure. Stay tuned.<BR/><BR/>Your best friend<BR/>Dennis :)DennisDiehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05069884969156562133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-67243594571106058002008-03-15T06:54:00.000+13:002008-03-15T06:54:00.000+13:00"I mean, "Kreationists"? "Jebus"? Really now."Oh, ..."I mean, "Kreationists"? "Jebus"? Really now."<BR/><BR/>Oh, that's being polite. It's much more civil than "retard," don't you think? <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-84964939836670423182008-03-15T06:46:00.000+13:002008-03-15T06:46:00.000+13:00Corky said...Tom Mahon said . .>>>the bible's defi...Corky said...<BR/><BR/>Tom Mahon said . .>>>the bible's definition takes precedence over the speculative opinions of men.<<<<BR/><BR/>>>>That's exactly why Galileo wasn't believed and the ignorance continues to this day.<<<<BR/><BR/>>>>Firstly, Galileo was contending with the Catholic church, not with people who understood the bible. But they were right and he was wrong!<BR/><BR/>Extract>>>Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime. The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, and the controversy engendered by Galileo's opposition to this view resulted in the Catholic Church's prohibiting the advocacy of heliocentrism as potentially factual, because that theory had no decisive proof and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture.<<<<BR/><BR/>Note the phrase, "potentially factual:" which mean that the facts may be discovered or declared at a later date. Well, to date, no one has demonstrated that the sun is at the centre of our solar system. So heliocentrism is nothing more than a theory.<BR/><BR/>OTOH, the Holy Bible, which is the authentic voice of the Holy Spirit of Truth, is God's divine revelation to man on all matters relating to the world. It indicates that the earth is at the centre of the universe. <BR/><BR/>The bible takes precedence over the speculative opinions of men because it is the only book that teaches man how overcome death. Any religion or philosophy that does not teach man how to overcome death, is of no value to man. Man may as well eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow he dies!Tom Mahonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02087223683733643082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-74960686827878435902008-03-15T06:33:00.000+13:002008-03-15T06:33:00.000+13:00Hey now! I'm playing both sides here. I just state...Hey now! I'm playing both sides here. I just stated what some of the theories "posited" meaning they weren't sure. <BR/><BR/>I am still not sure, and I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter whether or not you believe in god, a god, or a multiplicity of gods, <EM>so long as you do no harm to yourself or others in the pursuit and/or function of that belief.</EM><BR/><BR/>Does string theory propose there could be multiple universes? Yes. Has it been proven yet? No. Do I take it (on faith) that it's true because it hasn't been proven? Absolutely not.<BR/><BR/>Do I believe the Gnostic version of what happened in Jerusalem, a long time ago, far far away? Not particularly. Nor do I believe the canonical christian version of it, either.<BR/><BR/>The Gnostic gospels reveal an interesting insight into what the christian religion was like before the council of Nicea got its hands on the churches and started picking and choosing its canon, however.<BR/><BR/>(The Gnostic religion, as it exists today, appears to be either legalism for catholics, or catholicism for legalists. I haven't quite figured out which.)<BR/><BR/>To Tom Mahon, I regret to inform you that yes, I was referring to the crucifixion parable as an allegory, or a fable, as you correctly inferred. I hope you are not unduly offended by that, but that is my opinion. <BR/><BR/>Just for future reference, panentheism is not polytheism (the "pantheon" to which you referred), it is in point of fact quite the opposite. Panentheism allows for a non-anthropomorphic god, to wit: <BR/><BR/>"A panentheistic belief system is one which posits that the one God interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well."<BR/><BR/>Thank you <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism" REL="nofollow">Wiki</A>.<BR/><BR/>Now. Do I "hold fast" to panentheism just because I'm talking about it? <BR/><BR/>Nope. It seems like a theology that can be greatly individuated however, which is what appeals to me about it, but I am far from what could be considered an "adherent" of same. <BR/><BR/>The way I see it, people use religion either to control others (as the Levitical priesthood controlled us), or to control themselves, because they don't feel confident that they themselves are making positive changes in their own lives (and they have to attribute it to an anthropomorphized external entity).Weinland Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08029452242127198705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-51097309388394277822008-03-15T05:47:00.000+13:002008-03-15T05:47:00.000+13:00"Proofs" are only marginal. The hypothetical gene..."Proofs" are only marginal. The hypothetical generation in which Jesus returns will know beyond the shadow of a doubt. Until then, we will not see a definitive proof one way or the other. I personally believe that that is going to impact accountability for most people. If your mind works like that of Thomas, how can you be held accountable one way or the other, absenting definitive proof?<BR/><BR/>Until then, it all gets down to what resonates in your soul. Let's face it, there are many inconveniences to being a Christian, not the least of which is the fact that it tends to mess up your sex life. Also, some of the gifted non-Christians assume the Christian to be of subnormal intelligence soley based on his belief. <BR/><BR/>Folks programmed agnostically, or atheistically do not see the zombiism in themselves, but most certainly recognize it in Christians.<BR/><BR/>Life, IMO, is like CSI. You have to follow the evidentiary trail. A person who has not experienced "the call" will behave in one way, while the person who has is compelled to behave in a completely different manner. And, I believe that God keeps calling, and calling, and calling. Sometimes I feel that the person who is most hostile, the person who is preoccupied the most with proving that God does not, or could not exist is the person whom God is calling the loudest! How else could one explain the resistance?<BR/><BR/>BBByker Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17963860939122842077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-11298369197226138092008-03-15T05:30:00.000+13:002008-03-15T05:30:00.000+13:00Some people around here might want to try not to i...Some people around here might want to try not to inject so much contempt in their criticisms of those with whom they disagree. I mean, "Kreationists"? "Jebus"? Really now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-45416793863673666982008-03-15T04:55:00.000+13:002008-03-15T04:55:00.000+13:00"Further their DNA indicates that Neanderthals are..."Further their DNA indicates that Neanderthals are not related to modern humans. (That is, there is no significant connection. If we wanted to count any connection at all as significant, we would consider champanzees to be human.)"<BR/><BR/>What did I say about Kreationists- evidence will not be considered evidence if it contradicts scripture!<BR/><BR/>PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-61761313984496265672008-03-15T04:51:00.000+13:002008-03-15T04:51:00.000+13:00Neotherm, One more thing. Let's say you have a gro...Neotherm, <BR/><BR/>One more thing. Let's say you have a group of people from all walks of life scattered across the globe. The only thing these people have in common is that they do not believe in leprechauns.<BR/><BR/>Would you call these people, or their view, a religion?<BR/><BR/><BR/>PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-19222667375994430802008-03-15T04:48:00.000+13:002008-03-15T04:48:00.000+13:00"...atheists seem to want to wrap themselves in th..."...atheists seem to want to wrap themselves in the mantle of science."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Usaing the definition of religion, please describe how a lack of belief in a supernatural being is a religion.<BR/><BR/>Atheists want to cast off the mantle of delusion, of falsehood, of anything that bars a human from being able to witness the bare truth of reality. Atheists want reality, that's all. <BR/><BR/>PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-47323029648897407472008-03-15T04:43:00.000+13:002008-03-15T04:43:00.000+13:00"True – it’s also worth remembering that all three..."True – it’s also worth remembering that all three of these great men had a deep belief in God."<BR/><BR/>And? Why is this worth remembering? How does a belief in a supernatural being (whose existence can't be proved) further scientific inquiry? I think the proper outlook is to say, ~despite~ their belief in an imaginary being, these men were great scientists. Galileo and Newton lived in times where most people believed in God. In some countries, it was dangerous not to. <BR/><BR/>As far as Einstein, perhaps you need to get this into perspctive:<BR/><BR/>""It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press."<BR/><BR/>PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-12443696008184298832008-03-15T04:18:00.000+13:002008-03-15T04:18:00.000+13:00March "2007," that is . . .March "2007," that is . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-43738951676673291462008-03-15T04:16:00.001+13:002008-03-15T04:16:00.001+13:00Sorry for the completely off-topic comment here, b...Sorry for the completely off-topic comment here, but I just noticed that this year Bob Thiel wasn't able to resist saying something about St. Patrick's Day. Back in March 2006 at Gary Scott's former XCG weblog, I shredded Bob Thiel's claims that St. Patrick was a proto-Armstrongist Sabbath-keeper, showing from St. Patrick's own words that he was a Trinitarian Catholic bishop (Google "Some Armstrongist Blarney" -- but you'll have to go to the cached pages). So the next year in March 2077, Bob Thiel "celebrated" St. Patrick's Day by complaining about St. Patrick being a pagan Trinitarian.<BR/><BR/>But this year Bob is back to his previous pseudohistoricism -- St. Patrick and St. Columba and the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland were seventh-day Sabbatarians. (Don't be surprised if, as it was with his March 2006 anti-Patrick commentary) the historical sources he quotes -- well, actually he's just quoting another Armstrongist -- turn out to be misquotes and/or out-of-date scholarship.)<BR/><BR/>Or maybe St. Patrick was a pagan Trinitarian Sabbath-keeper. . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com